Is there a limit to wind power?

[audire]

Sorry for sounding tangential but wouldn't the next step be linking Physics, Quantum and Meta for a more complete view of the world and also is there any even hypothetical work being done on observing/testing metaphysical properties besides mathematics, which is in a way "not physically testable" except through proofs sometimes that sometimes fall short? That is to say how will science as a whole be able to bridge these gaps since I remember being told that string theory was not testable in high school yet only 4-5 years later do i see actual "hard science" observable tests actually being formulated.

 

[ToBePhysicist]

Greetings,
Answering the thread's question:
If asking about the (wind's power) as in P=w/t----->F.V_ins OR:

What determines how much power a wind turbine can produce?
The power is generated from the energy in the wind, so a turbine’s power is determined by its ability to capture that energy and convert it to rotational torque that can turn the generator and push electrons into the grid. A taller tower provides access to steadier winds, and larger blades capture more wind energy. A larger generator requires larger blades and/or stronger winds.

How much energy do wind turbines produce?
Every wind turbine has a range of wind speeds, typically around 30 to 55 mph, in which it will produce at its rated, or maximum, capacity. At slower wind speeds, the production falls off dramatically. If the wind speed decreases by half, power production decreases by a factor of eight. On average, therefore, wind turbines do not generate near their capacity. Industry estimates project an annual output of 30-40%, but real-world experience shows that annual outputs of 15-30% of capacity are more typical.

With a 25% capacity factor, a 1.5-MW turbine would produce

1.5 MW × 365 days × 24 hours × 25% = 3,285 MWh = 3,285,000 kWh

in a year.

What is “capacity factor”?
The capacity factor is the actual output over a period of time as a proportion of a wind turbine or facility’s maximum capacity. For example, if a 1.5-MW turbine generates power over one year at an average rate of 0.5 MW, its capacity factor is 33% for that year.

 

[Evanish]

Here are some links that might interest you.

This site is great. I use it all the time.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/12/wind-fights-solar/

You should also read through the comments on this one.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8322

Also, there is this.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2013/02/rethinking-wind-power

 

[comen Jorum]

Before we base our argument on the "limit" we ask ourselves what is the maximum amount of power produced by the device being rotated to generate power by wind. So, wind has got nothing to do with limit of power but only its blowing strength & speed.

 

[Evanish]

Before we base our argument on the "limit" we ask ourselves what is the maximum amount of power produced by the device being rotated to generate power by wind. So, wind has got nothing to do with limit of power but only its blowing strength & speed.

Wind is power in the form of kinetic energy over time. How much of that you can transfer into electric power depends on efficiency.

 

[audire]

Before we base our argument on the "limit" we ask ourselves what is the maximum amount of power produced by the device being rotated to generate power by wind. So, wind has got nothing to do with limit of power but only its blowing strength & speed.

There shouldn't really be a limit except on consumption? In observer based setting (scientifically provable results) the limit is arbitrarily based on energy needs per say and less on how efficient an energy system really is.

 

[Evanish]

In regards to the OP Let's think about the atmosphere like a flywheel. A certain amount of energy is stored in the atmosphere. Also a certain amount of energy is continually being added to the atmosphere, and a certain amount of energy is continually leaving it. Let's say the amount of energy being continually added to the atmosphere is roughly 100 - 300 TW. If more energy continually leaves the atmosphere then the amount that enters it the atmosphere will eventually have no stored energy left. From this we can gather that the upward limit on wind power as a renewable energy source is no greater than 100 - 300 TW. Reasoning further we can establish that wind power as a renewable energy source is significantly less than 100 - 300 TW. Not all the energy that leaves the atmosphere will be turned into electricity. Some of it will be lost to ground orography and self friction. Given this reality it could almost be said that wind gathering technologies are in competition with the ground orography and the self friction for that 100 - 300 TW.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
OmCheeto, is some of this along the lines of what you are thinking?
...

After 6 hours of research yesterday, I have no idea what I was originally thinking.
About the only thing I've said, that I'll defend saying was;

Given the complexity of the problem...

Have you seen the following simulator?: "earth, a visualization of global weather conditions, forecast by supercomputers"
If you click on the "earth" link in the bottom left of the screen, the following will pop up:

The Overlay "WPD", wind power density, blew my mind, at different altitudes:

1000 hPa |    ~100 m, near sea level conditions
 850 hPa |  ~1,500 m, planetary boundary, low
 700 hPa |  ~3,500 m, planetary boundary, high
 500 hPa |  ~5,000 m, vorticity
 250 hPa | ~10,500 m, jet stream
  70 hPa | ~17,500 m, stratosphere
  10 hPa | ~26,500 m, even more stratosphere

Wind directions, and power densities, are all over the place, at varying altitudes.
I think we could cover the entire windy landmass, with windmills, at the 100 meter level, and notice very little difference.

wind power density at 100 meters above the Earth's surface​

wind power density at 10 km above the Earth's surface​

Interesting that even at 10 km, the wind is diverted around the northern part of South America.

The green circle on the images is over my house.
Wind energy density above Om's house (45°N 124°W)
100 m: 0
1500 m: 8 kW/m²
3500 m: 11 kW/m² (our highest local mountain peak)
5000 m: 34 kW/m²
10 km: 62 kW/m²
18 km: 0.7 kW/m²
27 km: 0

I was somewhat fascinated by the winds at 10 km along our local coast, so I did some calculations:
250 hPa (10 km)

coordinates         wind speed  power density
50.14°N 124.36°W    266 km/h    78.8 kW/m^2 (northern edge)
45.78°N 124.00°W    260 km/h    72.8 kW/m^2 (southern edge)

distance between 50°N 124°W & 45°N 124°W = 440 km
output at 20% extractable from just 1 meter: 6.6 gigawatts
*
Grand Coulee Dam nameplate: 6.8 gigawatts

Grand Coulee is America's most productive hydroelectric dam.

Though, a 10km tall, 440 km long scaffolding, strikes me as a bit of an economic/engineering problem. Not to mention, the wind is constantly shifting.
But, as I've said before, there's nothing like some good mental aerobics, on a rainy Sunday morning.

ps. New Zealand is about to get hammered by a hurricane. If anyone is up to it, click on the "earth" link above, and check out the "WID" for different elevations.
pps. @StevieTNZ , HOLD ON!

 

[Don harwood]

The true power of wind... bombuli.com ...

 

[Don harwood]

Betz is DOA bombuli.com 3/8 Roe Area Velocity:cubed

 

[anorlunda]

I think A.T. gave the correct answer in post #4.

On a global scale, that energy is extracted from the wind anyway by interaction with the ground / natural obstacles. On a local scale though, you change where it is extracted, and where and it gets dissipated as heat.

If there was no windmill, 100% of the wind energy must eventually dissapate in the form of heat.

When there is a windmill, we produce electricity, but 100% of that energy also eventually dissapates as heat.

Unless the locations and timing of the two kinds of dissipation are widely different on a global/historic scale, the net effect on climate must be zero regardless of how much wind power is used.

 

[Evanish]

I think A.T. gave the correct answer in post #4.
If there was no windmill, 100% of the wind energy must eventually dissapate in the form of heat.

When there is a windmill, we produce electricity, but 100% of that energy also eventually dissapates as heat.

Unless the locations and timing of the two kinds of dissipation are widely different on a global/historic scale, the net effect on climate must be zero regardless of how much wind power is used.

I worry a little about those large powerful winds higher up. Can anything we do down here influences them in some way? those things have a large effect on weather right? What if someone tries to harness them with Airborne wind turbine could that maybe effect them? How exactly does energy get fed into those winds, does any of it come from down here?

 

[RaulTheUCSCSlug]

I think it would be interesting to see the molecular interaction between the wind and as it collides through the trees and measure it. (Possibly by measuring the average ambient temperature of the wind before it hits the tree, and then measuring the temperature after) Then comparing that to other windmills.
Also I am aware of more efficient windmills that have whale like blades that "slice" through the air better, but I thought you would want windmills that take the most collision, since they will have more kinetic energy to work with?

I don't know, but living in California, the windmills do provide a nice view going down the Altamont.

http://ak7.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/4614053/preview/stock-footage-wind-turbines-in-altamont-pass-wind-farm-california.jpg

 

[RaulTheUCSCSlug]

I worry a little about those large powerful winds higher up. Can anything we do down here influences them in some way? those things have a large effect on weather right? What if someone tries to harness them with Airborne wind turbine could that maybe effect them? How exactly does energy get fed into those winds, does any of it come from down here?

I believe the air circulates due to changes in temperature right? So I would imagine that the wind near the surface does affect it, but I think our hot pavements making the ambient temperature hotter have changed these gusts more then a windmill farm ever has. Especially since pavement and building have tended to increase the ambient temperature of cities.

 

[Evanish]

I believe the air circulates due to changes in temperature right? So I would imagine that the wind near the surface does affect it, but I think our hot pavements making the ambient temperature hotter have changed these gusts more then a windmill farm ever has. Especially since pavement and building have tended to increase the ambient temperature of cities.

I don't imagine one wind farm would matter much, but if people are getting Terawatts from wind it's a bit worrisome. I hope someone has done studies on this.

 

[jim mcnamara]

From a totally different perspective: One of the problems in power generation/distribution is control - determine where power is required and generate it to meet increasing or decreasing demand.

Wind is really variable, so in one area too much wind may require wind turbine shutdown and 20 miles away it may be nearly dead calm. What this means is that keeping the power grid in a known state solely with wind generated power is very difficult. It also may entail huge cost with today's implementation. Based on this model, the likelihood of getting to very high percentages of all power being wind generated in our lifetimes is small, without some gigantic strides in energy storage and transmission technology.

Current example of good implementation: Samso Island http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark#Sams.C3.B8_Island

 

[Andrew Mason]

From a totally different perspective: One of the problems in power generation/distribution is control - determine where power is required and generate it to meet increasing or decreasing demand.

Wind is really variable, so in one area too much wind may require wind turbine shutdown and 20 miles away it may be nearly dead calm. What this means is that keeping the power grid in a known state solely with wind generated power is very difficult. It also may entail huge cost with today's implementation. Based on this model, the likelihood of getting to very high percentages of all power being wind generated in our lifetimes is small, without some gigantic strides in energy storage and transmission technology.

Current example of good implementation: Samso Island http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark#Sams.C3.B8_Island

These are all valid points. But we have not yet begun to reach the optimum level of input to the grid from wind. Germany uses wind to provide about 10% of its electricity generation. Canada uses wind for about 3% of its electricity and the U.S. about 5%. Since the grid balances supply and demand, when there is demand and wind is available it displaces fossil fuel generated power.

No one is suggesting yet that all power can be generated from a single source such as wind or solar. But it is conceivable that all of our power could be renewable (i.e. directly or indirectly from the sun).

What is needed, perhaps, is a world-grid for electrical power. Solar panels in the Sahara desert connected to a similar arrays in the Gobi desert, Western Australia and Death Valley all connected to wind turbines in Europe, South America, North Africa, China, the Middle East and North America, and all joined together with hydro-electric production might be able to provide a renewable emissions-free reliable power supply for the entire world.

The real advantage of solar and wind, it seems to me, is the speed at which it can be constructed and implemented and the fact that it needs minimal operating resources. I am not opposed to nuclear and I think it is foolish to shut down existing nuclear facilities such as Germany and Sweden have elected to do. I think the concept of the Integral Fast Reactor bears looking at. But nuclear carries large construction and operating costs, and very long planning and construction time required. In the long-run, renewable energy will prevail. It is just a matter of getting the technology to do it.

AM

 

[mheslep]

But we have not yet begun to reach the optimum level of input to the grid from wind. Germany ...

Until some magically cheap and massive storage mechanism is developed, it may be that wind is already over developed in the like of Germany, given the rapid rise of its electric rates to the neighborhood of 35 cents/kWh (residential). While it is no doubt technically possible to recover much more wind energy from the atmosphere, it remains intermittent in nature, falling for moments to zero on more days than not, and occasionally falling to zero over vast areas for days. So, while intermittent power like wind can reduce the use of the existing conventional power fleet, almost none of the existing fleet can actually be closed down and replaced with wind and solar, as it would need to be to reduce cost. The result is two full capacity systems sitting side by side but running at different times, an enormously expensive scenario.

Germany for instance, has built some 73 GW nameplate (peak) of combined solar and wind in last decade or so, equal to the average load of the entire nation. Yet the size of the thermal and hydro fleet remains almost unchanged. Germany even continues to build new coal plants, with coal still providing 46% of electric generation, a larger share than in the US. The closed German nuclear plants are replaced with a tripled in size biomass combustion generation (10% of all German generation), so that Germany amazingly burns up half its timber harvest every year.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Until some magically cheap and massive storage mechanism is developed, it may be that wind is already over developed in the like of Germany, given the rapid rise of its electric rates to the neighborhood of 35 cents/kWh (residential). While it is no doubt technically possible to recover much more wind energy from the atmosphere, it remains intermittent in nature, falling for moments to zero on more days than not, and occasionally falling to zero over vast areas for days. So, while intermittent power like wind can reduce the use of the existing conventional power fleet, almost none of the existing fleet can actually be closed down and replaced with wind and solar, as it would need to be to reduce cost. The result is two full capacity systems sitting side by side but running at different times, an enormously expensive scenario.

Germany for instance, has built some 73 GW nameplate (peak) of combined solar and wind in last decade or so, equal to the average load of the entire nation. Yet the size of the thermal and hydro fleet remains almost unchanged. Germany even continues to build new coal plants, with coal still providing 46% of electric generation, a larger share than in the US. The closed German nuclear plants are replaced with a tripled in size biomass combustion generation (10% of all German generation), so that Germany amazingly burns up half its timber harvest every year.

This is all true. And these are all very good arguments for expanding the grid. The wind is always blowing somewhere in the world and the sun is always shining somewhere.

AM

 

[mheslep]

What is needed, perhaps, is a world-grid for electrical power.

If nuclear costs raise concern, see transmission costs for intermittent power. The most recent advanced transmission line completed in N. America was the West Alberta Transmission line: 500 kv, HDVC, 1 GW, 350 km, $1.7B, or $7 million per GW-mile. Imagine then, replacing a US east coast nuclear plant, perhaps the 4 GW nuclear plant completing construction in Georgia, where there's little wind resource, with transmission to ample (but intermittent) US mid-west wind. Average US wind capacity factor is 33%, so that the line must support 12 GW of wind power while it blows to replace the average of the nuclear plant. Distance is some 850 miles, so total cost based on the most recent installed technology is $23 billion, requiring right of way for perhaps six different lines across five states.

 

[Andrew Mason]

If nuclear costs raise concern, see transmission costs for intermittent power. The most recent advanced transmission line completed in N. America was the West Alberta Transmission line: 500 kv, HDVC, 1 GW, 350 km, $1.7B, or $7 million per GW-mile. Imagine then, replacing a US east coast nuclear plant, perhaps the 4 GW nuclear plant completing construction in Georgia, where there's little wind resource, with transmission to ample (but intermittent) US mid-west wind. Average US wind capacity factor is 33%, so that the line must support 12 GW of wind power while it blows to replace the average of the nuclear plant. Distance is some 850 miles, so total cost based on the most recent installed technology is $23 billion, requiring right of way for perhaps six different lines across five states.

All fair points, but these are not overwhelming problems. You don't have to build the windfarms all in one place so why would the distribution lines have to have such high capacity? Why would you need 850 miles of transmission line to connect a windfarm to the grid?

AM

 

[mheslep]

All fair points, but these are not overwhelming problems. You don't have to build the windfarms all in one place so why would the distribution lines have to have such high capacity? Why would you need 850 miles of transmission line to connect a windfarm to the grid?

AM

Existing transmission capacity is finite, which services existing need. In the scenario I used, if 12GW additional flow is required, then additional transmission must be built.

 

[anorlunda]

All fair points, but these are not overwhelming problems. You don't have to build the windfarms all in one place so why would the distribution lines have to have such high capacity? Why would you need 850 miles of transmission line to connect a windfarm to the grid?

AM

Don't forget, new transmission lines take more than just money. They need large areas of land, called "right of way". Simetimes, the land must be obtained by force (eminent domain). The process typically generates one lawsuit per mile.

For several decades, US utilities have been trying to live with the land already used for transmission lines. They figure that in the future, very little or no additional land will be available to them.

The number one flaw in the thinking of people who dream of new and better ways to generate and deliver electricity is failure to appreciate the problems of scaling up to meet the bulk demands for power. The number of plants, the numbers of lines and the amounts of energy, and the reliability of supply demanded exceed their imaginations. Clever innovations are a dime a dozen, but making one work on the scale required is very difficult.

 

[Andrew Mason]

50 years ago the experts would have given us 50 reasons why the Dick Tracy wrist video phone would never be possible or, in any event, practical. 50 years from now, I predict that people will see the arguments against renewable power the same way we see those.

These are problems that can be solved with political will and money. Windfarms are cropping up all over the place and the utility companies who put them up are finding ways to get access to the land . The windmills are spread over dozens of farms which all feed into a local station from which the power is transmitted to the grid. All I am suggesting is that we make the grid world-wide so that the US has access to solar power from the Sahara to charge our electric cars overnight.

AM

 

[jbriggs444]

All I am suggesting is that we make the grid world-wide so that the US has access to solar power from the Sahara to charge our electric cars overnight.

Arguing on the one hand that 850 miles is an unreasonable distance to transmit power and on the other hand that piping power from the Sahara to the U.S. is reasonable does not help your case.

 

[OmCheeto]

I don't imagine one wind farm would matter much, but if people are getting Terawatts from wind it's a bit worrisome. I hope someone has done studies on this.

I'm sure lots of studies have been done. I can't find the webpage I looked at yesterday stating that one study says there would be little effect, and another study says there would be disastrous effects. Everyone has their model.

Here's one from MIT done almost exactly 5 years ago:

Wind resistance
MIT analysis suggests generating electricity from large-scale wind farms could influence climate — and not necessarily in the desired way.
Morgan Bettex, MIT News Office
March 12, 2010
...
According to Prinn and Wang, this temperature increase occurs because the wind turbines affect two processes that play critical roles in determining surface temperature and atmospheric circulation: vertical turbulent motion and horizontal heat transport. Turbulent motion refers to the process by which heat and moisture are transferred from the land or ocean surface to the lower atmosphere. Horizontal heat transport is the process by which steady large-scale winds transport excessive heat away from warm regions, generally in a horizontal direction, and redistribute it to cooler regions. This process is critical for large-scale heat redistribution, whereas the effects of turbulent motion are generally more localized.
...

 

[Evanish]

50 years ago the experts would have given us 50 reasons why the Dick Tracy wrist video phone would never be possible or, in any event, practical. 50 years from now, I predict that people will see the arguments against renewable power the same way we see those.

These are problems that can be solved with political will and money. Windfarms are cropping up all over the place and the utility companies who put them up are finding ways to get access to the land . The windmills are spread over dozens of farms which all feed into a local station from which the power is transmitted to the grid. All I am suggesting is that we make the grid world-wide so that the US has access to solar power from the Sahara to charge our electric cars overnight.

AM

Electronics have advanced by making things smaller. You are talking about making something much bigger. The cost of building such a huge and complex machine is hard to imagine. I'm guessing the cost of maintaining it wouldn't be cheap either. Compared to this nuclear power seems cheap and easy.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Arguing on the one hand that 850 miles is an unreasonable distance to transmit power and on the other hand that piping power from the Sahara to the U.S. is reasonable does not help your case.

The idea is that regional grids would be linked to continental grids which, in turn, would be linked to a world grid. The grids are not just for wind power - they are for all power. So no one needs to build an 850 mile transmission line for a single windfarm.

Electronics have advanced by making things smaller. You are talking about making something much bigger. The cost of building such a huge and complex machine is hard to imagine. I'm guessing the cost of maintaining it wouldn't be cheap either. Compared to this nuclear power seems cheap and easy.

The links between continental grids could be large underground conductor paths. Those should have manageable maintenance costs. The idea is to build permanent infrastructure that would serve as an electrical grid that could last for perhaps hundreds of years. We do build things like that: canal systems and tunnels, for example.

Nuclear power in its present form is not sustainable. Even if we had enough U (which, based on present reserves and present consumption will meet demand until about 2050), the problems with decommissioning and spent fuel have to have simpler solutions. Perhaps the self-contained fast reactors would solve some of those problems and could allow us to use nuclear for another few hundred years. It takes 20 years to develop a nuclear plant. And it takes another 20 to shut one down. Fusion, if it is ever developed and becomes practical, would take even longer to develop and there are still huge shut-down and decommissioning problems and you are still left with radioactive core containment materials that won't be safe to go near for hundreds of years.

In 20 years we can build enough solar and wind to replace every coal plant in the US. We just have to use our imaginations to make it practical and make it work with other renewable energy sources such as hydro and biomass.

AM

 

[jbriggs444]

The idea is that regional grids would be linked to continental grids which, in turn, would be linked to a world grid. The grids are not just for wind power - they are for all power. So no one needs to build an 850 mile transmission line for a single windfarm.

Grids are not magic. You cannot sink a 12 gigawatt power surplus without budgeting for 12 gigawatts of excess transmission capacity to an available power sink.

 

[mheslep]

In 20 years we can build enough solar and wind to replace every coal plant in the US.

As I explained above, solar and wind as they exist now can not replace coal plants. Natural gas, nuclear, biomass, geothermal, hydro: these all can replace coal and do. Solar and wind can make coal plants run less, but not replace them and close them down. The cost of maintaining both systems side by side is, as shown Germany, very expensive.

other renewable energy sources such as hydro and biomass.

Reliance on biological sources for energy and materials in the past often led to their near extinction: forests, buffalo, whales. While fossil fuels have their own problems and there are reasons enough to limit their use, their introduction allowed forests to regrow where they had been nearly obliterated, e.g. most of the east coast forests of the US in the 19th century. A repeat of the mistakes of the past is comical as far as its currently gone; keep it up though and the comic might become tragic.

 

[mheslep]

Even if we had enough U (which, based on present reserves and present consumption will meet demand until about 2050),

90 years at the current rate of 66,000 tU/yr, using only reserves known today, using only U-235 thermal spectrum reactors. Known U reserves have been increasing for decades. Switch to fast spectrum reactors and the usable fuel supply increases by 100 times. Then there's the ocean content, then there's thorium.

 

[Evanish]

Nuclear power in its present form is not sustainable. Even if we had enough U (which, based on present reserves and present consumption will meet demand until about 2050), the problems with decommissioning and spent fuel have to have simpler solutions. Perhaps the self-contained fast reactors would solve some of those problems and could allow us to use nuclear for another few hundred years. It takes 20 years to develop a nuclear plant. And it takes another 20 to shut one down. Fusion, if it is ever developed and becomes practical, would take even longer to develop and there are still huge shut-down and decommissioning problems and you are still left with radioactive core containment materials that won't be safe to go near for hundreds of years.

Breeder reactors can been done, have been done and should be done more in my opinion. Decommissioning and nuclear waste are small problems compared to something like building a world wide electric grid.

 

[Andrew Mason]

As I explained above, solar and wind as they exist now can not replace coal plants. Natural gas, nuclear, biomass, geothermal, hydro: these all can replace coal and do. Solar and wind can make coal plants run less, but not replace them and close them down. The cost of maintaining both systems side by side is, as shown Germany, very expensive.

I agree, so long as wind and solar are highly variable or intermittent. All I was suggesting is that if we combined all solar and wind into a world-wide grid, that would not necessarily be the case. There is always sun shining and wind blowing somewhere on the earth.

Reliance on biological sources for energy and materials in the past often led to their near extinction: forests, buffalo, whales. While fossil fuels have their own problems and there are reasons enough to limit their use, their introduction allowed forests to regrow where they had been nearly obliterated, e.g. most of the east coast forests of the US in the 19th century. A repeat of the mistakes of the past is comical as far as its currently gone; keep it up though and the comic might become tragic.

Biomass is just a way of storing solar energy. You raise some legitimate concerns. But saying it is difficult does not mean it can't be done. I am not prepared to accept, at least right now, that with careful management, biomass could not be used to generate electrical power. I'm just saying that along with hydro, wind, solar, it could be used to supply all of mankind's electrical energy needs.

AM

 

[Andrew Mason]

Breeder reactors can been done, have been done and should be done more in my opinion. Decommissioning and nuclear waste are small problems compared to something like building a world wide electric grid.

I would like to have seen the US proceed with the Integral Fast Reactor because it does provide a reasonably acceptable solution to the spent fuel problem. It has its own operational challenges - e.g liquid metal cooling. Assuming those are solved, it still leaves the decommissioning problem. But it was canceled and we may never get there.

In the long term, however, we have to use the energy from the sun. It will last as long as there is life on earth. It would be a challenge to make it work but it will work. It is not as if we have to commit huge resources to wind and solar all at once. But if we don't make it an important goal, we will never find the solutions to all the problems it faces.

AM

 

[Evanish]

I would like to have seen the US proceed with the Integral Fast Reactor because it does provide a reasonably acceptable solution to the spent fuel problem. It has its own operational challenges - e.g liquid metal cooling. Assuming those are solved, it still leaves the decomissioning problem. But it was canceled and we may never get there.

In the long term, however, we have to use the energy from the sun. It will last as long as there is life on earth. It would be a challenge to make it work but it will work. It is not as if we have to commit huge resources to wind and solar all at once. But if we don't make it an important goal, we will never find the solutions to all the problems it faces.

The breeder reactors that we can be built today are good enough in my opinion sodium coolant and all. We should start building them now. We likely won't, but we should in my opinion. In the long run breeder reactors could power civilization for millions if not billions of years. That seems long term enough to me. I've spent a good number of years reading about this subject. It has not left me with much confidence in wind and solar. I'd feel much safer if we were building nuclear instead, but I seem to be outvoted (in western society at least) so I guess I'll just have to wait and see. I am a bit curious why you think decommissioning is such a big issue.